DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

San Francisco District, Corps of Engineers

333 Market Street

San Francisco, CA  94105-1905






October 28, 1996                                                                     03 00070 96102803



Mr. Robert D. Johnston, President
Dutra Dredging Company
1000 Point San Pedro Road
San Rafael, CA  94901

Subject:  Superintendence by the Contractor, FAR 52.236-6
                 Communication Metrics and Notes of Meetings
                 Serial Letter No. CESPN-CT 95-C-0003-0010

Dear Mr. Johnston:


Reference is made to your contract DACW07-95-C-0003 for (-)42' Navigation
Improvement, Oakland Inner and Outer Harbors, Alameda and San Francisco
Counties, California.


This responds to your memo dated Oct 15, 1996 to Tom White, Project Engineer
stating in part:


    I am very disturbed over the "minutes" of our last meeting,
    Wednesday, October 9, 1996.


    There are many comments purported to be discussions that 1)
    did not happen in our public meeting and 2) are not reported
    as they were stated in the meeting.


    Therefore, we reject these "minutes" as inaccurate and
    misleading.


    We request accurate minutes be issued to the parties in
    attendance.


You raised this concern again during the Progress Meeting on Oct 15, 1996.  COE
notes of that meeting issued to Dutra on or about Oct 21, 1996, sets out your
concern and the COE policy and objectives in communicating with the Contractor.









Mr. Robert D. Johnston, President                                  Page 2 of 2
Dutra Dredging Company
Subject:  Superintendence by the Contractor, FAR 52.236-6
          Metrics and Notes of Meetings
          Letter No. CESPN-CT 95-C-0003-0010




I am by this letter affirming such policy and objectives as the COE response to
your Oct 15 memo.  I am in addition advising that COE communications do not
seek acceptance nor rejection by the Contractor.


COE communications, including notes of meetings, inform the Contractor of
understandings COE has drawn from events about what needs to be done, action
COE is taking and action it expects the Contractor is taking.  This provides
the Contractor an early opportunity to object, as you did during the meeting,
noting an omission of a comment by Marc McGovern, as reported in the notes of
the meeting for Oct 15, 1996 at line 100516.  Since that is the only correction
you offered, COE holds that it is the full and complete scope of deficiencies
you complain about in your Oct 15, memo to Tom White.






Dutra is urged to
continue making timely notice of information you feel is incorrect, as will COE
to Dutra, so that each side may proceed in confidence about understandings on
pending matters.  Complaining after actions are taken causes harm which COE
holds is avoidable and thus the responsibility of Dutra.






As explained at the meeting on Oct 9, 1996 COE is using Communication Metrics
to correlate performance with contract requirements.  This will help both sides
work through pending claims and other matters, and also avoid misunderstandings
that otherwise lead to needless delays, extra cost and claims.  In this regard
COE is encouraged by your observation at the Progress Meeting on Oct 22, 1996
that the meeting notes were improved, and that you offered no corrections.  We
are prepared to discuss this methodology with Dutra to accommodate reasonable
concerns, and have offered to do so at a convenient time to you.


Sincerely






Shirley Turnbo

Contracting Officer


Copy To:
  

     CESPN-CO, L. SooHoo 

     T. White, R. Andrews, M. McGovern